Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sukhram Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:24827
1 WP-38704-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 7 th OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 38704 of 2025
SUKHRAM SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Nirmal Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Jitesh Sharma - Government Advocate for the respondents/State.
ORDER
1. The instant petition has been preferred by the petitioner, under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by inaction of the respondents
for not extending the benefit of increment. The petitioner retired on 31/12/2015,
was denied increment due on 01.01.2016 on the pretext that he was not in service
on the said date.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that whether a government
employee retiring on 30th June/31st of December of a year is entitled to avail the
benefit of increment as fixed on 1st July/1st of January has been decided by the
Supreme Court in the case of the Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL & Ors. vs.
C.P. Mundinamani & Ors., Civil Appeal No.2471/2023 dated 11.04.2023 ,
wherein after considering the judgments of different High Courts, including the
Madhya Pradesh High Court, it has been held that benefit of annual increment
which is to be added on 1st of July/1st of January every year shall be paid to the
employee who retire on 30th June/31st of December of the said year. It is further
submitted that controversy is now no longer res integra. The petitioner retired on
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:24827
2 WP-38704-2025
31/12/2015, therefore, he is entitled to avail the benefit of annual increment which
was to be added on 01/01/2016. The said aspect has also been dealt with by the
Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ratanlal Rathore Vs. The State of Madhya
Pradesh and others (Writ Petition No.4118 of 2020) decided on 28.07.2023.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that earlier an SLP
(Civil) No.8119/2020 was preferred by the State challenging the orders passed in
W.P.No.298/2020 and W.A.No.319/2020 but the same has been dismissed on 11-
07-2023.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer to the extent of
payment of interest and enhanced pension for the period prior to 31/04/2023. He
relied upon the order dated 6/9/2024 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP(C)
No.4722/2021 [Union of India & Anr Vs. M. Siddaraj] . He refers the clarification
given in the said order.
5. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents
appended thereto.
6. After going through the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the
case of C.P. Mundinamani (supra) , in para 6.3 and 6.7 it appears that the view of
M.P. High Court in the case of Yogendra Singh Bhadauria and ors. Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh has been considered in favour of employee who is retiring on
30th June of that year. Once the Apex Court as well as Full Bench of this Court in
the case of Ratanlal Rathore (supra) has decided the controversy and found the
employee entitled for the benefit of approval of entitlement to receive increment
while rendering the services over a year with good behavior and efficiency then it
appears that petitioner has made out his case.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, made a statement at
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:24827
3 WP-38704-2025
bar that before his retirement, the petitioner was getting his regular increments on
1st of January of every year.
8. Since the petitioner has retired on 31/12/2015 and is claiming his
outstanding claim, but in the light of the clarification issued by Apex Court vide
order dated 6/9/2024 in the case of M. Siddaraj (Supra), it appears that following
clarification deserves reiteration:-
(a) The Judgment dated 11/04/2023 will be given
effect to in case of third parties from the date of the
judgment, that is, the pension by taking into account one
increment will be payable on and after 01/05/2023.
Enhanced pension for the period prior to 31/04/2023 will
not be paid.
(b) For persons who have filed writ petitions and
succeeded, the directions given in the said judgment will
operate as res judicata, and accordingly, an enhanced
pension by taking one increment would have to be paid.
(c) The direction in (b) will not apply, where the
judgment has not attained finality, and cases where an
appeal has been preferred, or if filed, is entertained by the
appellate court.
(d) In case any retired employee has filed any
application for intervention/impleadment in Civil Appeal
No.3933/2023 or any other writ petition and a beneficial
order has been passed, the enhanced pension by including
one increment will be payable from the month in which the
application for intervention/impleadment was filed.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:24827
4 WP-38704-2025
9. Resultantly, respondents are directed to grant the benefit of annual
increment to the petitioner from the date of filing of the petition and issue fresh
pension payment orders in favour of the petitioner, if not already issued, that too
within a period of three months from the date of submission of certified copy of
this order.
10. Respondents are at liberty to consider the suitability/eligibility of the
petitioner and thereafter, relief shall be granted.
11. It is hereby clarified that this order is applicable only in case where
petitioner is retired just one day prior to the date of implementation of increment.
12. Petition stands allowed and disposed of in above terms.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
vpn/-
